178 thoughts on “Steve McIntyre on the Bolt report”

I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
He’s actually one of the worst advocates to have – one might as well have Pauline Hanson advocating one’s position.

Facts are facts. If they come out of a unsavoury fellow’s mouth, it makes no difference. The AGW case was built on false information and unethical behaviour.
Who cares what talking head reads the story?

@Chris Watson
Andrew Bolt actually has a great reputation in Australia. His blog is one of the most read in the country and The Bolt Report out-rates even The Insiders which is aired just prior. Since Bolt left The Insiders it has become such a pale shadow of its former self. With few conservatives and many climate change head-nodders.

@chris Watson
Err who are you talking to? I do agree that he made incorrect statements which has been punished via legal ways for. But then again, James Hansen can say what he wants and gets away with it. Double standards???
Andrew Bolt has said what many people in Australia has thought and believe. You may not like it but that is your problem not Andrew Bolt’s. Facts are often viewed as offensive by the Left, that is because they dislike being exposed for what they are.
If Bolt says something that is clearly wrong on Climate, I would believe that even Anthony would point it out, much like the saga with Lord Monckton.

Chris Watson has it wrong – Bolt has a great reputation in Australia and has been persecuted by the politically correct nanny state that Australia has become for daring to speak honestly and forthrightly. He has a huge audience and a great number of supporters.

Andrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted under Australia’s disgraceful anti freedom of speech law that makes it an offense to say something that could offend someone. This report in the Sydney Morning Herald [SMH] printed before the conviction provides good information.http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/silenced-in-court-20101002-161×9.html
“This case is troubling because of what it says about our right to freedom of speech. … Silencing Bolt doesn’t just silence him. It potentially silences the speech of others who might be afraid of being similarly dragged through the legal system. … To his credit, Bolt is a prominent critic of Victoria’s vilification laws. … You can have the right to free speech, or you can have the right to be protected by the government from the offensive speech of others. You can’t have both.”
For the benefit of non-Australians –
– The SMH is a staunchly pro-AGW paper to the left of political centre, and a natural opponent of Andrew Bolt’s views on just about everything. For them to print this is highly commendable.
– The Australian Liberal Party, which gets a mention, is the major right-wing party. In US terms, it is barely right-wing at all.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pmHe’s [Bolt] actually one of the worst advocates to have – one might as well have Pauline Hanson advocating one’s position.
It seems that you don’t get the import of, nor the further “context” provided by the Climategate 2 emails as to Climate Science’s “methods”, because you just used one of Saul Alinsky’s favorites – smear the messenger and all of his/her contacts by association, avoid the factual substance of the message. Thereby “proving” that Climate Science is “true”?

As an Australian, i can tell you Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia. The program is generally viewed as a very low brow, muck raking production. And the fact he writes for The Herald Sun doesn’t help. I guess any exposure to the climate fraud and scare tactics are helpful, although Andrew Bolt may be one individual you would like to keep some distance from.

Ric Werme says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:16 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Agreed, the interview with Donna is well worth a look. She is quite comfortable infront of the camera and the interview rolls well.
Also (but obviously very politically motivated with its own agenda), it is worth looking at the following youtube video on the IPCC:

Contrary to Mr Watson’s opinion (a guy who doesn’t even live in Australia), Andrew Bolt has an excellent reputation as an honest journalist and staunch defender of freedom of speech, among ordinary Australians. He is of course hated by chardonnay socialists, global warming alarmists, and green/lefties in general. For UK readers: AB is a bit like James Delingpole.

I just have to add my voice in defence of Andrew Bolt. As Mike Jonas says above, he has been shabbily treated under disgraceful, intrusive and oppressive laws. Note that he was not sued for libel or slander, but simply on the basis of people taking offence, while freely admitting that they had not suffered any actual harm. The case was nothing more than an attempt to suppress opposing views and what is most disgraceful is that it succeeded. The one positive outcome, however, is that the opposition has promised to review this anti-democratic law.
Andrew Bolt is a voice of sanity in a world of madness and we need more like him, not less.

Andrew Bolt leave little room to dispute where he stands, often against the herd. While I don’t agrre with everything he says , He does stimulate thought , analysis and discussion. That IMHO is more good than bad.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia…
———————-
The left in the USA accuse Limbaugh of the same kind of stuff. Most of their accusations are either mischaracterizations or completely invented.

Both Chris Watson @ 5:36 and Paul @ 6:45 missed out two words. What they should have said, if they were being honest is – Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation amongst progressives. He is despised by those who hate the questions he asks of progressives, and the pro liberty positions he takes. Unlike many of his critics, he truly tries to hold this current progressive, and extremely incompetent, government government to account. He also questions the status quo, something the sycophantic left loathes.
The non sycophantic left are a little more relaxed about him.

Paul says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:45 pm
As an Australian, i can tell you Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia. The program is generally viewed as a very low brow, muck raking production. And the fact he writes for The Herald Sun doesn’t help. I guess any exposure to the climate fraud and scare tactics are helpful, although Andrew Bolt may be one individual you would like to keep some distance from.
=======================================================
Bollocks! and I’d not hesitate to say that you think that ‘The Age’ newspaper and its socialist ‘journalists’ are high brow.
Andrew Bolt appeals to a very wide sector of the Australian community … including ‘high brow’ and ‘low brow’ types … for the reasons that embody free speech and free thought – qualities that socialists cannot contend with.
Clearly Paul, you are not of the ‘high brow’ or ‘low brow’, but of a minority socialist.

For those not of the Great Southern Land, the left hate Bolt with a passion. Leftist politicians refuse to be interviewed by him, in print, radio or TV. A boycott.
He is probably the most read bloggist in Australia.
I like the way the opinions of McIntrye are dismissed because of the person ibterviewing him.

Unfortunately most of the responses to Chris Watson suggest that Mr Bolt is popular amongst people who are already inclined to be sceptical of CAGW and unpopular with those who are either believers or who haven’t given the subject much thought.
While ever the only media figures who are critical of CAGW can be easily written off (however unsubtly or inaccurately) as being of the far right then large swathes of the public will ignore sceptics. (On the other hand, it’s been harder for alarmists to attack Donna’s book because she doesn’t have a history of being right-wing)
Conversely, we will know we are seeing the death throes of CAGW when media figures who are of the centre or left are openly sceptical. There may well be a number who are already privately sceptical but are unlikely to risk social and career suicide in the present atmosphere.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
He’s actually one of the worst advocates to have – one might as well have Pauline Hanson advocating one’s position.
=======
You jumped into this thread, as the first comment, and started telling us what you think, we think.
Then you told us what a terrible person Andrew Bolt is, and mentioned migrants and ethnic minorities.
So, your opinion is noted:
But, I must ask, who the hell is Pauline Hanson ?

1 Dec: Financial Times: Barclays hit with €82m lawsuit
By Megan Murphy and Anousha Sakoui in London and Pilita Clark in Durban
CF Partners, a UK advisory and trading firm, claims it came to Barclays in September 2008 to explore whether the British bank could provide financing for a potential deal with Tricorona, a Stockholm company that had a vast portfolio of carbon credits in the niche area of hydro power projects.
When that transaction stalled amid a deepening global financial crisis, Barclays used CF’s work on the value of Tricorona’s credits in pursuing its own deal with the Swedish company nearly two years later, CF alleges in a lawsuit filed in the High Court last month…
The case provides a glimpse into the highly specialised market for carbon credits, a once-booming area for global banks. Barclays’ deal for Tricorona and JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of a similar company, EcoSecurities, in 2009 came at a time of mounting interest in the business…http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe03ae04-1c33-11e1-9631-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fLhlnrrS

It’s a shame Chris Watson hijacked this thread with his drivel, as we really should be talking about Steve. I have to agree with Torgeir Hansson, Steve McIntyre is the Team’s worst nightmare. There may be a few cases, but I can’t think of a single claim he’s had to retract. He cautious, thorough, and his analyses are devastating in their clarity. He doesn’t need press releases or fanfare to rip the other side to shreds. Interestingly, he doesn’t discuss it much at CA, but his politics are left-wing. He has also made clear that he isn’t a “skeptic” as most of us would think of it. His beef is with the intellectual dishonesty of the “science” being promulgated to support the claims.
The man deserves an Order of Canada and the Medal of Freedom. He’ll probably have to settle for be played by Sean Connery when they make Climategate, the movie.

It looks like the trolls paid by green organizations such as Greenpeace, GetUp and whatever others I do not know here in Australia have been busy little boys.
Here is another Australian who is defending Andrew Bolt against such terrible slurs. Do I agree with Bolt all of the time? Nope, and especially in relation to the QANTAS lockout, it is a big NO!!
However, when it comes to the fact that people like Tim Tam the Flim Flam man aka Tim Flannery continue with their deceit and their alarmism, then I think Bolt does a very good job exposing the lies, deceit and hypocrisy.

Andrew Bolt is one of the few journalists in Australia that is not kowtowing to the left wing lunatics and the useless labour government we currently have in here. The left wing loonies in Aus’ have tried to silence him in the only way they know how, via court action with false claims. Andrew is the one of the few journalists who has the decency, honour and character to face issues the rest just ignore and fail to cover. We should have more journalists like Andrew as he is a breath of fresh air. His popularity is unquestionable and his determination to expose corruption and radical left chicanery has not made him any friends in that area. But who would want to anyway.
He is a hugely successful and popular journo, which explains the efforts of those smear merchants trying to downgrade this great human being..

I have criticized Steve Mc in the past for not being more vociferous. He has done a great job here. Anyone who has done spots like this (Anthony?) will tell you it is very difficult to convey a lot of information in a short time while still being coherent. Steve did exactly that.
Sweet, as my kid would say!

2 Dec: Irish Times: China and Brazil threaten to block carbon offset trade
PILITA CLARK in Durban
DURBAN 2011: CHINA AND Brazil have warned that one of the world’s biggest carbon markets will be under threat if wealthy countries reject their demands for a new phase of the Kyoto protocol…
“The issue now is to avoid countries getting away with murder,” said Andre Correa do Lago, Brazil’s chief envoy, in a separate interview. “You cannot think you can have the instruments of the Kyoto protocol without belonging to the Kyoto protocol.”
Bankers and investors have long feared the UN-backed carbon offset market – the second biggest after the European Union’s emissions trading scheme – would become a political football in the fraught negotiations at the Durban summit, given its proximity to the December 2012 Kyoto expiry deadline…
Legal opinions differ on whether the CDM can technically be killed off if there is no extension of Kyoto commitments.
But the carbon industry worries that threats to end the offset market make investors nervous, which in turn raises the cost of capital for CDM projects in developing countries. “It’s like someone waving an empty gun around in a coffee shop,” said Miles Austin, director of the Climate Markets Investment Association.
“It scares off customers even though there are no bullets.”…http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1202/1224308474749.html

Two words: Echo chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29)
I used to follow WUWT fairly closely, Anthony, seeing what issues were being discussed, some of which were well worth reading. I’ve basically given that up since the site reactions to the BEST results (“what we expected, but not important”, “not happening at all, despite the evidence”, “disagreed with them all along despite saying we didn’t”) and the ClimateGate focus that has monopolized the site. These emails don’t seem to disclose anything not shown in Climategate 1.0 (including some of the same email excerpts), and as they say – context is everything:
Hate to say it, but you seem to be painting yourself into a corner here.

It’s amusing how many people there are who want to think for other people. People who don’t have any idea who Bolt is can read. They can read his pieces or watch/listen to his clips and make up their own minds on whether he is credible or not.
What strange times we live in where people are so quick to make fools of themselves in an attempt to discredit others. Maybe it’s even stranger when people believe them and not their own eyes.

LOL.
2 Dec: Mail & Guardian, South Africa: Dirty energy financiers shamed
by Lloyd Gedye
South African banks Standard Bank and Nedbank made the list, coming in at 60 and 76 respectively. Standard Bank had a total of €447-million tied up in project finance, investment banking, corporate loans and assets related to the coal-energy sector; Nedbank had a total of €119-million.
Absa’s 56.4% shareholder Barclays Bank came in fifth on the overall list with a total of €11.5-billion invested, and Standard Bank’s 20% shareholder, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, came in 13th with €6.2-billion invested.
Other major coal energy financiers include JP Morgan Chase with €16.5-billion, Citi Bank with €13.75-­billion, Bank of America with €12.6-billion, Morgan Stanley with €12.1-billion, Deutsche Bank with €11.5-billion and the Royal Bank of Scotland with €10.9-billion.
The report was released by South African social and environmental justice organisations GroundWork and Earthlife Africa, alongside German environmental organisation Urgewald and international non-governmental organisation BankTrack, and is meant to embarrass the financing banks.
“While most large commercial banks provide figures on their annual investments into renewable energy, they neither track nor publish their annual investments into fossil fuel projects,” according to the report…
According to the World Devel­opment Report 2010, “if all coal-fired power plants scheduled to be built in the next 25 years come into operation, their lifetime CO2 emissions would be equal to those of all coal-burning activities since the beginning of industrialisation”.
“In Europe over 100 new coal-fired power plants are in a planning stage or under construction,” according to the report. “Last year, 173 coal-fired power plants were approved for construction in India — that is one power plant every two days.”
“All told, India has enough plants in the pipeline to expand its coal-fired capacity by 600% over the next two decades. “In China, two new coal plants are being completed per week,” it says. “If China’s carbon usage keeps up this pace, the country’s CO2 emissions in 2030 will equal the entire world’s CO2 production today.”…
The world’s private banks are not the only ones under the spotlight at COP17; a recent report has highlighted the World Bank’s role in funding dirty-energy projects.
Titled “Unclear on the Concept: How Can the World Bank Group Lead on Climate Finance without an Energy Strategy?”, the report released this week at COP17 points out that more than half of the World Bank’s energy funding in the past four years went to fossil fuel projects, comprising more than $15-billion of its total $33-billion financing in the energy sector.
By contrast, it spent only $6.5-billion on clean-energy financing…http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-02-dirty-energy-financiers-shamed/

KR,
You’re whistling past the graveyard. These emails are having a tremendously corrosive effect on the CAGW scare, and if you don’t see that you’re blind. The corrupt, venal riders on the grant gravy train are reprehensible and dishonest, and the word is getting out to the general public, which doesn’t approve of dishonest scientists trying to get anyone with a different point of view fired, and who are always trying to fan the dying flames of the fabricated “carbon” scam.
And regarding “echo chambers”, that label is permanently stuck to the alarmist blogs that censor any comment that doesn’t follow their narrative. That only leaves their small handful of mouth breathing head-nodders. That is the definition of an echo chamber blog. OTOH, WUWT welcomes all points of view. And when that happens, the pseudo-science based CAGW nonsense becomes apparent and falls apart. That’s why you hate sites that allow all opinions; through discussion, they destroy the runaway global warming BS that your thinly trafficked echo chamber blogs thrive on.

Quick question – Does anyone ever remember KR being a regular here as he claims? I’ve got two words for him “concern troll”.
Basic format: “I’ve been a long time reader and huge supporter of (blog name), but lately the discussion regarding (latest topic) has me very concerned…”
We’ll carry on in our echo chamber while your plans to tax and regulate us back to the stone age go down in flames.

Mike Jonas and others, thanks for posting those snippets from The Bolt Report. I often don’t get the chance to watch the more interesting ones and these were very interesting indeed.
Anyone pick up in the Prof Steffens interview that he mentioned that flooding rainfall was due to a ‘strong el nino’? This is usually a trigger for drought conditions and at the time of the South-East Queensland floods following into Northern Victoria floods it was a reasonably strong La Nina (plus conditions in the Indian Ocean Dipole were favourable I believe, again the combination of a stronger La Nina and unfavourable Indian Ocean dipole conditions led to a wet South-East Queensland and a dry Northern Victoria in the summer of 2008-09). Still that is such an elementary mistake by Prof Steffens to make, but while that was said Bolt should have stated his sea-level rise statements were based off Envirosat measurements from the start and not all the sattelites measuring sea-level, in this he gives Prof Steffens an out as data from other sources can invalidate this statement.
The climategate/CO2 tax/environment issue is being collectively swamped by a concerted effort by Labor and the left-leaning media at this moment on the issue of ‘gay marriage’, Durban? What Durban conference?

Any who are not familiar with Mr Bolt just go to his website. He is forthright and blunt, and on occasions a little dogmatic, but he is a breath of fresh air in the stifling left-wing MSM environment in Australia. The recent free speech trial was a travesty of justice and many politicians from both sides have vowed to repeal the offending law as soon as possible. His persecutors chose not to sue him for defamation where truth is a defence. Rather they used an obscure, until now, unused part of the racial discrimination law that creates a tort by simply offending someone, to try and embarrass him.
He has guests, and counts among his friends, many Labor (left) politicians on his program. And in fact he worked for Hawke Labor government in the 80s. Many of them (Labor government politicians) are closet sceptics and have used his program to give the nudge nudge wink wink to viewers. (as opposed to admitting so openly – cowards.)

Interesting (and not unexpected) responses to my post.
Does anyone feel that including context of excerpts is somehow wrong? Or leads to incorrect interpretations of what was actually being said?
It’s possible to quote _anything_ in short excerpts out of context, and present any view you want with selective editing. Even the Bible – it’s certainly been done before.
Personal opinion (take it for what you will, or won’t), based on browsing news outlets, Google searches and the like – this release of emails is having less impact on the first one. Mostly because (a) there’s nothing really new, (b) the worst sounding stuff was posted 2 years ago, (c) when examined, the worst stuff from 2 years ago didn’t look all that bad in context, but basically (d) it’s now old news, and media doesn’t deal well with that. Aside from, I will note, the lack of response to FOI requests! The response to those was lousy, and various people have been slapped around on that topic. I don’t think they will get away with that in the future, even if (as happened with the CRU data) most of the FOI requests come as annoying form letters and harassment organized by individuals with axes to grind.
—
Re Skiphil , and: “that video is a truly execrable bit of propaganda trash…” – Which parts of actual context do you object to? What parts of skepticism, i.e. checking what you’re told against all the facts, do you object to? Hmmm?

u.k.(us) asked who is Pauline Hanson:
Pauline Hanson is a politician from Queensland in Australia. She started a party called One Nation. She made some “unfortunate” comments in her maiden speech to parliament and attracted a lot of rat bags and fringe groups. Both political parties set out to destroy her (for different reasons). She is no genius and not a very skilled politician but she struck a chord with a section of the Australian community because she was concerned about the lack of a assimilation of new migrants into Australia (I’m not going to agree or disagree with her just to note that she was a product of the circumstances at that time). She was characterised as a racist and a loony. It is now standard practice for the Left to label anyone who disagrees with them as a Pauline Hanson supporter. Interestingly, she was convicted of electoral fraud in 2003 and sent to prison. Many people considered her to be a political prisoner. Eventually the conviction was overturned by a higher court (on the basis that there was “no evidence”) and she is a free person and now has a fair media profile. (Wikipedia has some good details). Regarding Andrew Bolt… the left despise him because he is an increasingly effective advocate against them. He is becoming more popular in Australia and has always been vocal against climate alarmism. I used to hate his guts, then climate change, global warming, climate disruption (whatever it is called this week) became an issue. Now I’ve started to listen to him more.

Actually, I’m not a climate alarmist. I’ve been a climate skeptic a lot longer than Andrew Bolt.
The guy is an ignorant, repulsive shock-jock (I lived in Melbourne 17 years, I know what I’m talking about). You should read the comment section on his blog sometime. It’s not a case of “smear the messenger” – more like “sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas.”
My advice: “if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.” It would be smart not to let climate skepticism be seen as ‘Andrew Bolt’s issue’ in Australia. Actually, Bolt would like nothing more. He’s just a bandwagon rider; he doesn’t understand the issue. He’s simply sniffed it out as something he can parrot that gets the kind of reaction he likes.
This issue actually raises one of the bring problems for skepticism, which is that – like alarmism – it coming to be ‘owned’ by a faction who have a whole lot of unsavoury ideas they want to peddle along with it – all that Ayn Rand, Limbaugh, Le Pen cr#p.
I don’t support climate alarmism. I saw through ‘Global Warming’ years before Andrew Bolt. But if you want me to vote for a platform of “climate skepticism and the other things Andrew Bolt believes,” I – like most Australians I know – just can’t do it – because among the other things he believes are some dangerously horrible ones.

As far as Andrew Bolt goes, if he had such a bad reputation in Australia, he obviously wouldn’t have many listeners. Kinda like the left saying Rush Limbaugh is hated by nearly everyone in the US. Obviously neither that statement nor does Chris’s square with the facts and likewise CAGW doesn’t square with the facts.

These alarmists want to believe in their hyper- warming fantasy. Why? Money, politics, reputation, religious philosophy, and, yes, stubborn stupidity – or is that stupid stubborness. Notice in Mike Jonas comment where he has the Bolt interview with Climate Commissioner Professor Will Steffen, who nonchalantly states that the seas level rise is accelerating, not telling us that data games are played to create that perception. But Nils-Axel Morner, the ocean expert, says it’s all bs:
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’ ” (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml)

KR, I hope you are aware that there was nothing of substance in the video clip you posted. A lot of references to conspiracy theory, several hand-picked straw-man emails being hand-waved away, scientists’ bias being blithely dismissed as normal [that’s not good!], and a few irrelevancies, but it also contained this:
“A well-known phenomenon called the divergence problem“,
as if calling it “well-known” was enough to dismiss it as being of no significance. That was it. No explanation of the divergence problem was offered.
Well, I would agree that the divergence problem is well-known, because it has been surgically dissected by Steve McIntyre and has been shown to be very significant indeed. He has demonstrated with full scientific rigour that some very unscientific things were done by Michael Mann and acquiesced to by others. There have been many posts here and in Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and various other blogs etc that have covered the divergence problem in some detail.
If, like the narrator in the video clip, you consider yourself to be a sceptic, you might care to explain where Steve McIntyre has got it wrong? Perhaps starting with the spaghetti graphs which show various segments of proxy data being deleted, while no explanation of why there was a divergence was given, nor of why the reason for the divergence was such that the bits of proxy data left in were still reliable.

The case was decided against Bolt because he had 1 fact wrong.He referred to one of the plaintiff’s parents as a German with a photo showing a white skinned person. It was in fact the plaintiff’s grandfather.
Then the judge contorted his language to describe the plaintiff’s skin colour. The reason being that he himself did not want to offend these thin skinned people. In return, the prosecution had no shame in court before the judge of accusing Bolt of being a NAZI and just a few steps from inciting a holocaust and other pleasant bon mots.
As far as CAGW goes, Bolt uses solid references. He does not accept the WWF press releases recited by our politicians as gospel. He asks why is it so? The trolls then use the Saulinsky procedure or Fenton physics to dispute with him and readers. ( Fenton physics is if it feels good ,or the data is fitted to the outcome, or it looks and sounds good in a 3 minute tv grab, then it is settled consensual science.

I’ve been a regular UK reader of WUWT since well before it became a “must-read” for people interested in climate and related topics. This is not a criticism of the moderators, but I’ve never known a topic which has been taken over by political polemicists before. I hope that this isn’t a sign of things to come.
To Chris Watson, who started this “hare running” , and those who followed, most readers here don’t need to be told what to think – and, without Anthony Watts’s permission, I’d like to disinvite you from doing so again.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:39 pm
The guy is an ignorant, repulsive shock-jock (I lived in Melbourne 17 years, I know what I’m talking about).
=================================================================
I’ve lived in Melbourne all my life and, on the basis of what I’d read/been told about him, used to say the exact same thing.
However, after I consulted the primary sources (his actual writings) I now consider him an excellent journalist. I still disagree with him on a number of issues – euthanasia, casual drug use, Israel/Palestine to name a few – but I can no longer pretend he’s the “ignorant, repulsive shock-jock” I was led to believe he was.

Andrew Bolt is a bit to the tabloid end of the spectrum, granted, but he is listened to and his show invariably has serious public figures from both sides of debates on which means they all take notice of him. That just means he is a key figure in the debate which is what it is all about folks. So all you non Aussies should not take much notice of the Bolt haters, just listen to his interviews ( be it Will Steffen or whoever) and take away what you will. We are after all one of the worlds oldest continuous democracies who took 10 years just sorting out our federal constitution and not a shot was fired.

In modern parlance, as a rule (there may be rare exceptions),
“deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities” = truth.
Footnote: I am a migrant and a Pre-Native (Siberian) American.

Chris Watson @ 9:39all that Ayn Rand, Limbaugh, Le Pen cr#p
Sigh, and there we have it. “I disagree with what you say therefore you must think the same as le Pen.”
Achieves naught bar demonstrating that you have no idea what any of these people say or think, because there is very little that they would agree on.
Have you ever read Bolts column? Listened to Limbaugh? Read Rand? I can’t imagine any set of people more likely to disagree with the authoritarian socialism of people like le Pen or the Australian progressives.
I find this whenever I try to talk to Australian progressives, it invariable descends to their making absurdly wide ad homs, while I try to talk issues.
Still, nothing to do with McIntyre, is it.
What we do find on Australian television, the Bolt Report is the only place you can go where a view counter to the IPCC ‘consensus’ can be found. All other programs, on both this and other channels, stick to the narrative. If you don’t watch Bolt then you wouldn’t know there is a debate doing on. Now that isn’t healthy.

BOLT is the No.1 most read, watched and listened-to journalist in Australia. See the link belowhttp://www.thepowerindex.com.au/megaphones/andrew-bolt
And not surprisingly, the top 3 spots are all filled by vocal skeptics with Alan Jones and Ray Hadley coming in at 2 & 3.
Perhaps the Alarmist folk can explain why this is the case ?

Chris Watson,
Your green puppet head avatar at your website and your purported “zero enmity” music seem at odds with your barely concealed resentment of Andrew Bolt. ‘There is no healing, only forgiveness’. What is that about? Musician, heal theyself!
If you are given to introspection, ponder upon the term “cognitive dissonance”. Try and figure this out; the opposite of hate is not love, it’s indifference.
Typed whilst listening to AB on MTR 1377, thanks to the Internet. http://www.mtr1377.com.au/

Not being an Australian I am not in the position to know anything about Andrew Bolt nor do I care! If the AGW subject had been given fair and open debate on all the airways, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are today! Stifling scientific debate and declaring the science settled was the flag that got me involved in this; science is not, and never has been, settled.
Great video!
repealtheact.org.uk

FOIA unreadable data is not crypted, its´only MIME format, and is easily converted back
to TXT mode.
i´took a sample, where Mike Hulme writes that only reason is to curb emissions,
politics as usual.http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
My pc systems are under firing, i cant´ send visual description

I don’t agree with Bolt about everything, but I do believe that he is sincere, honest and miles ahead of the competition MSM that still uncritically parrot whatever they are told in Greenpeace press releases. As his is the most widely read blog in Australia, it is true to say that he is loathed by his opponents. They make the same mistake as the AGW crowd do about people like Anthony and Steve McIntyre – they assume that because he disagrees with them he must be morally deficient.
It was awesome to see Steve McIntyre being interviewed. Bolt’s opponents have no idea who McIntyre even is, let alone what a coup it was to get him on a modest little TV show in Australia. Once again, they just don’t get it. No wonder almost every newspaper and several TV and radio networks in Australia are losing money. They are totally out of touch.

Ilkka Mononen says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Ikka, I’m no computer expert or cryptologist but can you clarify how or if you have broken the encryption on these files? I’m not quite clear from your posting as to what the key actually is. I also can’t yet see any other comment here that’s taken up what you say but if you’ve actually done it, the mods or Anthony should certainly pick up on it (? mods/Anthony?). As I write though, it’s still the early hours in the US, mid morning here in the UK. And if you have managed it, you’re a star!

There were something visually wrong at email, if there is somethig “waste” symbols,
so they means something secret, thus wery important.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
Game is not over:
>***********************************
> NAME *
>***********************************
This is also a message. i´suppose.
Must try >’***** CR> nameofsomebody * CR >*******’ .
My point is, wuold you spread this so widely as you can.
Ilkka.

Compelled to stand up for Andrew Bolt. He’s a conservative liberal but in Australia that is considered right wing. He struggles to give voice to a modicum of conservative opinion in an environment dominated by the radical liberal elite. To my mind a man of great integrity, tested and proved in season and out against pretty consistent demonising by his enemies.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-will-out-on-labors-carbon-scam/story-e6frezz0-1226197176697
The truth will out on Labor’s carbon scam
>>On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”
Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.
Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.
It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade. Replacing even a portion of our cheap, coal-fired power with renewable energy is hellishly expensive. It also requires costly adaptation of existing infrastructure.<<

artwest says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm
….Conversely, we will know we are seeing the death throes of CAGW when media figures who are of the centre or left are openly sceptical. There may well be a number who are already privately sceptical but are unlikely to risk social and career suicide in the present atmosphere.
________________________________________
This statement sums up the mass media. A pack of lemmings.
The media is not interested in reporting the truth or even in doing EASY investigative reporting. Instead it is only interested in being a propaganda tool for those interested in enslaving whole populations. They use “Socialism” as the cloak they hide behind to make the changes we would fight against more “Palatable”
Would people, even whole countries, be willing to commit economic suicide without the three or four generations worth of brain washing by the Progressives? An economic suicide based on an easily revealed lie that the media refuses to look at?

Pandoras box
Hex &H20, or space and then — — —- —- —– etc, founds the personal emails,
for every big climate boss. Gray eminences have a diffrent story.
Try it with FOIA grepper, whitc in on WUWT.
Help me, too much work for me alone.
Ilkka.

I have criticized Steve Mc in the past for not being more vociferous. He has done a great job here. Anyone who has done spots like this (Anthony?) will tell you it is very difficult to convey a lot of information in a short time while still being coherent. Steve did exactly that.

At the Chicago ICCC, Steve’s talk disappointed many people there. They expected to hear from a white knight charging on a gallant steed to take down all things related to bad climate science.
Instead, they heard from someone whose primary motivation was to understand the data behind the hockey stick and share his findings. Nothing more. In fact, he commented he almost wished he hadn’t been so public and made it clear he had no goal of being a public spokesperson leading the charge.
Basically, he’s no Lord Monckton. That’s neither good nor bad. Actually mostly good – we need both types.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris watson, you are totally wrong. Your comment is misleading. It is a strawman.
I havebeen following Bolt for some time now. He makes comments NOT, as you say, “he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.”, but he is highly critical of Labour’s policies on ILLEGAL migrants.
Jojn Howard’s government had managed to get the numbers of illegals to zero.
Juliar Guillard’s government has opened up the slave-trade again, with many poor illegals drowning in the cruel seas. Juliar’s policies are causing deaths and suffering on the high seas.
If we have to save people from extreme conditions, such as famine, tyrannical politicans, then what we should do is get them SAFELY and LEGALLY on a plane, in a ship, a train or something but not in a ricketty boat with a 50% risk of drowning.
Juliar is killing people. That’s what.

Just thought that I would defend Bolt as well from the pig ignorant remaks of Watson.
Bolt is the best journalist in Australia by a very wide margin. He hates racism, Nazism, Stalanism or any totalitarian ideology with a vengance as he has stated many times over the years.
The left of course love totalitarianism and groupthink as practised by Hitler , Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc and detest anyone who state their own point of view with clarity and strength.
Andrew Bolt even had Paul Howes the Labor left leader of Australia’s biggest union defend him in regard to his right to free speech in the recent court case. He said Andrew was a friend and acted honourably at all times. Mark Steyn and many others praised Andrew at the same meeting.
Andrew is probably the most accurate and honest Journalist I’ve yet found and at his best he has very few equals. He is easily the most widely read and admired person in the Australian media.
Just for the final proof of his worth, the looney, delusional left hate him , so you know he must be doing a good job.

Conflicting opinions abound about Andrew Bolt. That is to be expected, he is a deliberately polarising character. His success as a writer and broadcaster hinges on his ability to generate controversy. His expressed views on most topics tend to the far right, politically, so those who are liberal minded (including the majority of the Australian media) consider him to be a close relative of Satan. He is not universally liked by conservatives, as he is abrupt and sometimes rather rude.
That said, the Australian media desperately needs some conservative voices and Mr Bolt seems to fill that need. In the current media landscape, it is unlikely that a conservative who is less abrasive than Mr Bolt would get any attention at all.

Ric Werme says:
December 2, 2011 at 5:04 am
Well said. My Dad has been accused of being “too political”. He knew what was going on and realized, as evidenced by the 2 rafts of emails that these fellows were doing anything but science. He risked EVERYTHING for the scientific method at great personal cost ( they are still smearing him). To say this latest batch of emails show “less than the first” is beyond ridiculous. Purely politically driven.
Now we find ourselves back to where we were scientifically 30 years ago. The public should be up in arms, but they don’t know enough about it.
Fortunately there are those few who saw clearly and kept to the scientific path (Watts, Lindzen, McIntyre, Christy, LeGates, Daly, Pielke Sr., sorry if I missed anyone). They were labeled “deniers” by a well positioned politically driven machine.
“A lie travels around the world twice before the truth gets its boots on”.

Anybody able to decode Ilkka Mononen’s cryptic riddles?
Has anybody eye-balled the raw encrypted ‘text’ portion of the latest Climategate dump? Does it come close to resembling MIME format?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME
.

Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2011 at 3:45 am:
“This statement sums up the mass media. A pack of lemmings.”
—————————————-
Agreed
—————————————-
“The media is not interested in reporting the truth or even in doing EASY investigative reporting. ”
—————————————————
More or less true.
————————————————–
“Instead it is only interested in being a propaganda tool for those interested in enslaving whole populations.”
————————————————–
That is certainly not how most in the media would see themselves. There would be a whole range of motives ranging from self-interest to “draconian rules are necessary to save the planet from horrible human beings”.
————————————————-
“They use “Socialism” as the cloak they hide behind to make the changes we would fight against more “Palatable””
——————————-
Have to disagree – certainly in Britain.
To use Socialism as a cloak they would have to be claiming to be socialist – they aren’t. Further, using the word socialism to make CAGW attitudes more “palatable” wouldn’t work because most of the population don’t consider themselves to be socialist and would be unimpressed by any attempt to use socialism as a reason for doing anything. The public in the UK tend to distrust ALL political labels and even more so anyone who loudly embraces a political label.
Most of the people in the media would reject the word Socialist as a label for themselves (whatever anyone else might think) and so would most of the public. I think that this is because the perceived (and I stress perceived before this gets pounced upon) political centre is more to the left than it is, say, in the US.
That is why accusations that CAGW is a “Socialist” or “Communist” or “Marxist” plot sound absurd to most UK ears. Many of the people involved would not apply any of those labels to themselves and NEITHER would most other disinterested people.

Neville. says:
December 2, 2011 at 6:13 am
…Just for the final proof of his worth, the looney, delusional left hate him , so you know he must be doing a good job.
______________
Agreed 100%. The litmus test of the truth is when the looney delusional left oppose it. Henc eit must be correct.

KR: December 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm
You are missing the forest for the trees. There is no context, no interpetation that is ethically acceptable for these behaviors. What you have is a bunch of scientists using KGB-type tactics to force adherence to what is clearly incomplete science at best if not outright fraud. They are attempting to use this so-called science to force governments around the world to spend billions if not trillions of dollars in an attempt to mitigate something that may not be a threat at all. That is the scandal. Go see McIntyre’s most recent post on CA if you doubt me.

Okay … so we’re decoding the MIME content attached in the e-mails on this one …
1) Using this file as an example:http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2803.txt
2) Stripping the MIME content starting with _this_ line (starting with lines before will not work):
> SU1FIFxAICJkIE1NTU0sIHl5eXkiIBQyIEp1bHksIDE5OTcVCQkNDQ0NUmU6ICBTdGF0ZW1lbnQg
3) and feeding into:http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp?charset=iso-8859-1&acharset=
4) I get:the following as an output (my redactions below) :
IME \@ “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997-
Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. The statement has specific goals in specific countries:
In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its position.
In European countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse emissions: Here, the Statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I request the following from you at this stage:
Your suggestions for changes in text.
Your recommendations for scientists to contact for commenting on the draft.
Having agreed on a form of words by consulting with a small number of colleagues (a process I am co-ordinating for the UK), we shall proceed to invite about 10 key scientists in the field in Europe (e.g. Crutzen, Houghton, Bolin, etc.) to sponsor the statement. Having gained this prestige endorsement, we shall then endeavour to invite as many additional scientists as possible (100s if not 1000s) to indicate their support for the statement which shall then be presented to the media at a press conference ‘ … with the support of “n” European scientists.’
Please reply as soon as possible at the below address. We look forward to your comments.
With best wishes,
Mike Hulme
email: [redact]@[redact]
fax: [redact] [redact]
phone: [redact] [redact]
and
Joseph Alcamo
Rob Swart
– Statement of European Scientists
on Actions to Protect Global Climate
In 1992 the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year, at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take an even more important step. It is our opinion that in Kyoto the nations of the world should agree upon immediate and substantive action to ensure the long term protection of global climate by controlling the current increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Our opinion is bolstered by the assessment of scientific knowledge carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recently published a voluminous report on its findings. The report noted:
Global mean surface air temperature has increased by around 0.3 to 0.60C since the late 19th century.
Recent years have been the warmest since 1860.
Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm over the past 100 years and much of the rise may be related to the increase in global mean temperature.
The IPCC also maintained that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, and that climate is expected to continue to change in the future. These changes will bring with them further increases in sea level, the transformation of forest- and other ecosystems, modifications of crop yield, shifts in the geographic range of carriers of disease of plants, animals and humans, and many other impacts. Some of these impacts may be seen as positive, such as the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in certain dry regions; and some of these impacts may be adapted to, as in the case of building dikes to protect against slowly rising sea level (where they can be afforded). But many, if not most, impacts of climate change will increase risks to society and nature. Furthermore, many of these impacts will be irreversible. As the IPCC has reported, vulnerability to climate change is of particular importance to people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or on small islands. Risks to nature will be significant in the many areas where natural ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
Because of these risks, we find it important for nations to develop long-term climate protection goals, as in setting limits on the increase of global temperature and sea level. Equally important, we recommend that European and industrialized nations use long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example, by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
Some may say that action to control emissions should be delayed because of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. We reply that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change”, as clearly stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We also recognize that there are economic arguments for delaying the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find the arguments against delay to be more compelling. First, delaying action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions to future generations. Second, delaying action will lead to a greater accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore make it more difficult to prevent future climate change when action is finally taken.
Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other industrialized countries to accede to controls of greenhouse emissions as part of a Kyoto agreement. We further believe that some of these emission controls can be achieved at little or no net cost through improvements in the efficiency of energy systems and faster introduction of renewable energy.
As to a quantitative goal for controlling emissions, we believe that the European Union proposal is consistent with long term climate protection. This proposal would reduce by 15% the total collective greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the -15% target as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
*Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
Version: 4
Date: TIME \@ “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997-
PAGE 3-
PAGE 3-
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I think JoNova was thinking of KR when she wrote this. BWT: KR have you read all of the emails, of just the ones you’ve filtered through those green colored glasses?http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climategate-ii-handy-guide-to-spot-whitewash-journalism-the-top-10-excuses-for-scientists-behaving-badly/The top 10 excuses for PR writers who pose as “journalists” to ignore ClimateGate emails
This is standard issue damage control for ClimateGate — protect the cheats and liars, attack the whistleblower, and use excuses and padding-fillers to cover a story without actually giving the public any information on the behavior of scientists who make statements that billions of dollars of public spending is guided by.
1. “The emails are old”
(No one has seen them before, and what makes two-year-old lies acceptable now?).
2. “The timing is suspicious”
(Alarmists release alarming stuff all the time in the lead up to big meetings, but look out, it’s suspicious when a skeptic releases alarming stuff about those scientists at the same time!)
3. “They’re out of context”
(We won’t explain the context, or quote the email, trust us, they just are, OK?)
4. “The emails show a robust scientific debate”
(But that is the whole point isn’t it? We were told the “science was settled”? It is dishonest to discuss uncertainties in private while you tell the public “the debate is over” and call anyone who questions that a “denier”.)
5.“They’ve been investigated”
(Even though the investigations didn’t have these emails, didn’t investigate the science, and were at least in one case, chaired by a windfarm expert, this point is supposed to have credibility?)
6.“They’re hacked” or “stolen”
(After years of investigation there is no evidence they were hacked. They could have been leaked. Police can’t or won’t say. Does this journalist “know” something the police don’t?)
7. “Aren’t the skeptics nasty people?”
(Crikey, imagine reading emails written by paid public servants on the job about their professional work? What victims! Those poor scientists can’t even threaten journal editors, conspire to ignore peer reviewed papers they don’t like, or discuss their ignorance in private… what’s the world coming too?)
8. “This doesn’t change the science”
(Since most of “the science” is merely a consensus of these same experts, whom we are told to respect, then actually it does change “the science” when they are caught cheating.)
9. The emails “mean nothing” according the scientists caught cheating
(The sock puppet earns bonus points if those same scientists also get to slur the whistleblower and skeptics with unsubstantiated implications that “they are funded by fossil fuels”.)
10. The public response is a “yawn”
(And given how few journalists are reporting the actual emails to the public, that’s entirely predictable eh? Circular reasoning strikes again.)

More Soylent Green! says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:17 am
You are correct in the MSM sense. It is more grassroots than that.
The average person will not discuss “climate change”. They have bigger problems to deal with. Ironically, those problems are being brought about by the policies of “climate change” (and all the other BS scare tactics). People are just trying to get by not understanding that their financial difficulties are because of “the cause”. Whatever the hell that is.
The comparatively few in the world that can afford academia have insulated themselves, financially, socially, and intellectually from the general population. Hence the arrogance.
I am ok with anyone disagreeing with me. It is what makes WUWT? a joy to read.

If your results cannot be reproduced it isn’t science. If you hide your data and method than by definition it can not be reproduced. KR, I find it very frightening that you think the emails show nothing important. With or without context several people are conducting a campaign that is absolutely anti science. While the actions and comments reflected in the emails are only borderline criminal, there is absolutely no doubt that the represent the very worst anti scientific campaign I have ever seen.

Andrew Bolt is very good.
His interviews with a conservative and a Labor supporter are particularly interesting and gets them actually debating the issues rather than sprouting slogans.
His interview with the professor was very telling.
The good proff was much more restrained than I have seen him before, as he was obviously nervous being interviewed by someone who actually knows more than a bit about climate.
Bolt made the proff agree that several of Tim Flannery’s wilder sayings had no merit.
I think that he let the Proff get away with a few porkies in the dying seconds of the interview.
I suspect that the iron grip of commercial TV meant that he could not extend the interview to get in the final blow.
But eight out of ten.
I will be interesting to see how many true believing scientists are willing to front Bolt next year.
I doubt that there will be many.

Moderator XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Attention Moderator PLEASE
Please pay attention to what ILLKA and Jim have been saying.
It looks as though ILLKA has cracked the unbreakable code, although her English makes it very hard to understand what she is saying.
Jim on the other hand does seem to understand quite clearly and appears to have translated a large group of encoded text into plain English.
This may be extremely important.REPLY: All that has happened is that an email attachment encoded in MIME format has been decoded. This happens every day in every email program. That’s nothing close to the AES 256 bit encryption locking the rest of the files. – Anthony

Just laughing to my English, i´have almost newer need to write anything to English,
an i cant, as you see, i must learn. I can read, not write, funny is´it. you must correct
me, i suppose that it takes some weeks te learn to write.
Emails are not decrypted at all, they sometimes are using MIME , beause some of treir
message devices uses it, some kind of FAX, i´, sure that somebody here can
tell us an example.
Whats the point shortly
Person1 = > –
Person2 = > —
Person n. = > —————————–
Person z = > *********************
Person y = > *** ********** , ********
Person d = ???s@yahoo,com
etc. We must iterate a list of pseydonyms.
I.ll do a wep page where to collect “namecodes”, they are not crypted
> ————- is a name, edu , or file.
You must rind strange pharses from tekst and put it to FOIA gepper.
Very lage job, i´m doing a climategate phonebook, starts until tomorrow
on my web page, open to all.
Way that they have hidden data is not illegal, because data was not crypted,

I too stand up for Andrew Bolt, he took on the looney faux academics who used to run off at the mouth with lying exaggerations on any social issue or leftist pretext – He asked them the impossible, to prove their loose and lying statistics, and they could not do so, as none existed. He exposed them for what they were, empty vessels trying to create their own authority to mask the lies they were spreading within the tertiary education system, where no one dared challenge them. He continues to ask the questions that we want asked and sweeps aside political correctness and stupidity to get to the truth.
The hard left and those beaten academics hate him so much, because he exposes the rubbish they spout. We need his journalistic judgement and determination to get to that truth, that is why his column is so popular, so he becomes a target they must suppress by any means possible.
May he continue to challenge and write his exposures on such issues, for the advancement of all decent and thinking Australians.

“” I – like most Australians I know – just can’t do it – because among the other things he believes are some dangerously horrible ones.”
Every single Australian believes what Andrew Bolt says, and also believes lots of things that he probably believes, but would never dare say..
For example, talk with any Australian leftist in private and he will acknowledge that pure blooded aboriginals differ from whites by several standard deviations, with near zero overlap, but Andrew Bolt would never say that out loud in public.

James A. Donald says:
For example, talk with any Australian leftist in private and he will acknowledge that pure blooded aboriginals differ from whites by several standard deviations, with near zero overlap…
Good Lord, man, just where did that come from? Differ in what way? Intelligence, senses, immunities, cell structure? Zero Overlap? That would mean that Aborigines have nothing in common with humans, or any other form of life on the planet! The last time I looked, matings between Aborigines and “humans” produce viable offspring…. something that would not be possible if there was “zero overlap” between Aborigines and whites. Get a grip. The aboriginals may have reached Australia first, but the differences between them and those who arrived later are miniscule. The genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 5%…

Richard Verney @6.53 & Smokey @7.10
Thanks for posting these videos.
Of interest perhaps in the Urban Heat Warming debate and siting of instruments and averaging of temps is this story from Brisbane, Queensland (Aus).http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/article/heat-wave-burns-king-george-square-designers/509556.aspxhttp://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/king-george-square-the-hottest-place-in-town/story-e6freoof-1225821004408
Due to the drought and dams not filling (and ?not enough dams and/or capacity for the population) the previous Council Executive Office delivered Brisbane residents with ‘egg-timers’ + suction pads (for their bathroom tiles). This was to ensure everyone knew to have a 3 minute shower. Quarterly reports in graph form of household water consumption compared to the av street h/hold consumption were posted to all residents. I have no idea whether number of individuals per household were taken into account with the production of these reports. Years previously many feature water fountains (inc the Square described in the articles above) had also been turned off or removed.
Twelve months ago Brisbane and surrounding Councils suffered from devastating flooding.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
Oh get a life, victim hugger. Migrants and ethnic minorities! You forgot women and deaf people. He was insensitive to those err… “communities” too. Clearly you don’t care about those oppressed social groups though, you insensitive sexist, deafist bastard!
/sarc

All the mails includes, scam, data manipulation, press influence, smearig
activist campaigns and so on.
When slimeballer team have had time to do their own real job?
date: Sat Apr 7 16:57:01 2001
from: Mike Hulme
subject: RE: kyoto survey – press inquiry from the THES
to: “Farrar, Steve”
OK, will try and do this by Tuesday morning.
Mike
At 09:45 05/04/01 +010 ???, you wrote:
Dear Mike,
thanks for that. I feel terrible but despite the pain it cost to reply to the survey,
the deadline has now passed. We had such a high response rate that we decided to run the
piece in this week’s paper while the issue of the US withdrawl from the protocol was
still high in everyone’s mind. So I cannot include your responses. However, you make a
number of very significant points, not least your reply to question 2 on the strength of
the evidence and the political framework outlined in your final sentences. I wonder –
and I know this is pushing it – whether you might consider rearranging some of these
sentences to form a brief letter to the editor for the following week’s paper? I would
like this issue to stay alive in the THES and allow the paper to play a small role in
persuading as many scientists as possible to take part in a scientific/political debate
that may contribute to influencing those people who *can* change things. Not an original
objective, I know, but the THES does have a fairly unique position within the academic
community and hence a responsibility. Anyhow, sorry for the bad news
best wishes
Steve
***********************
Steve Farrar
Science Reporter
Times Higher Education Supplement
66-68 East Smithfield
London E1W 1BX
United Kingdom
[1]www.thes.co.uk
Tel: (44) ???
Fax: (44) ???
—–Original Message—–http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3423.txt&search=+—————————————————————————-

And there was nothing wrong with Pauline Hanson either though the media went ape to kill her. She was just the canary in the coalmine warning governments that ordinary Australians were sick and tired of the economic “reforms” that saw their children’s jobs exported to Asia.
For non-Australians, Pauline Hanson is an Australian nationalist who was dis-endorsed by the Liberal Party (liberal in Oz means conservative) for expressing Politically Incorrect Thoughts about indigenous Australians. She stood as an independent in what was a safe Labor seat and won it convincingly. Much to the intelligentia’s dismay.
At the next election the boundaries were changed and she lost her seat. Since then she’s become a media tart.
Hanson was never the sharpest pencil in the box but she was also not the moron the media made her out to be. She is and was a patriot in an age where that word is verboten.
I have respect for Pauline Hanson because of all the indignities she has suffered: being imprisoned; refusing to have visits from her children because she would be subject to indecent body searches.
A disgusting episode in Australia’s history.

The commentator begins his piece with the assertion that the “Climategate 1/2” memos were leaked. Wrong:they were stolen. He then asserts that a “small” group of scientists are convincing the world that their is a problem needing fixing now. In fact, the “small group” is a huge group and the so-called skeptics are the small group.They have achieved this mischievous result by”massaging data, and censoring “skeptics”, he asserts. Again wrong, as confirmed by 5/6 independent investigations.
This is an incredibly inaccurate beginning, and it sets the tone for everything which follows, unfortunately.

Ilkka Mononen – Please can you confirm that I understand correctly what you are saying, that is –
– you have found how to decode email attachments, or files embedded in the emails.
– you have not found how to decode the ‘200,000’ files released by the whistleblower/hacker that are still ‘7zip’ encrypted

Yes, the key is in the mail, its not hidden, its´steganographical crypting, and
anybody regognizes that the mail includes a secret message.
I have put plenty of examples to hese pages, but anybody seems not to understand that.
Example: key is space key and regard. +regarded, space key generates +http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1109021312.txt&search=+regarded
Do you not see how easy it is, it is true, they are real messages Clomategate 1, or 2
“decrypted”.
Where is that Jim, he can explain better.
Ilkka

Theory: The tie between master dictionary and hidden dictionary is broken.
You can´t search Hidden files, because you dont know their names txt>18384024028.
Slimeballers must know exactly that >————– is txt>18384024028
So they must put it on the screen that >————– , ass i mean.
They have no another way, to use hidden files.
God only knows, but so it works.
It is an open book to read.
Ilkka.

Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
———————————————————————
Bolt’s ‘insensitive comments’ relate to radical Islamists (whatever their ethnic background, including Anglo/Celtic), people who break the law (including ethnic gangs, which he has the gall to identify) and people who come to Australia, live on welfare and dedicate themselves to undermining fundamental values such as state secularism, democracy, sexual equality and freedom of speech. So shoot him.
As he is a migrant himself, and has never made disparaging comments about entire races, nationalities or religions, just about some individuals, the racist epithet just doesn’t wash. What he will not do is paper over the truth in the interests of pretending that everything is rosy in the multicultural garden, or that every religious or cultural practice or belief is equally valid. These views are not exactly extreme – unless you support genital mutilation, fatwahs, State ordained religion, compulsory purdah for women and a range of other unpleasant and uncivilised activities.
Bolt’s major failing in the eyes of his opponents is that he is so popular. They seem to think that he singlehandedly brainwashes vast numbers of the population, something they are not succeeding in doing. It is just another example of how contemptuous some sections of the ‘intelligensia’ and the media are of the opinions and perceptions of the unwashed masses. You get the feeling that they would, given half the chance, restrict the franchise exclusively to people like themselves.

Illkka, these strings:
“+AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w”
or
“+AcUXiV64e%2Ff3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w”
when entered as the password when prompted by 7Zip did not open any of the archives or files in “all.7z” for me, at least …
.

We have diffrent Charsets,
Are FOIA files US ascii?
If you put a wrong ASCII key code to the text string, it fails.
Once again, use copy fom FOIA grepper, and paste it back to search window.
This is NOTE.http://ascii-table.com/keyboard.php/285-1
Ei ne ymmärrä hölökäsenpölläystä!

Ilkka Mononen says December 3, 2011 at 10:32 pm
We have diffrent Charsets,
Are FOIA files US ascii?
If you put a wrong ASCII key code to the text string, it fails.
Once again, use copy fom FOIA grepper, and paste it back to search window.
This is NOTE.http://ascii-table.com/keyboard.php/285-1
Ei ne ymmärrä hölökäsenpölläystä!

Also note, Ilkka, that, conversion has occurred in some of the characters going from the original files to the web-site files that are now on the ecowho.com website.
For example:
1) line number 19 from file “2803.txt” directly from FOIA2011.zip file on my PC:
> –=====================_867848803==_
2) line number 19 from http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2803.txt
> –=====================_??? ==_
3) I now show the two lines next to each other:
> –=====================_867848803==_
> –=====================_??? ==_
Note the change from: “867848803” (9 characters) to: “??? ” (4 characters including the trailing space). What accounts for this change?
My recommendation, if in doubt, or to confirm any ‘results’ one obtains about decoding or actual content of files would be to use the files *directly* unzipped from the FOIA2011.zip file.
And. optionally, use a hex editor to examine directly the raw file data existing on the PC’s hard disk to confirm any changes in character set representation changes that might be taking place between what is actually _in a file_ and what is _displayed_ on a PC’s display.
.

Update: The 9 numeric characters were probably altered as part of an automated phone number masking script being applied to the file before upload to the web site.
Now I am curious about the details of this automated masking script; its output, when encountering decimal digit sequences, would seem to be: “??? “.
.

Is this old or unseen?
??? is puzzling me, if it means something else, i look it at &H, it is ???, is it canged
via ascii conversations?
Money talks:http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1826.txt&search=+—+
cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones , Sarah Raper
date: 25 Jul 1997 21:44:26 -0600
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Battelle & US DOE
to: Janice Darch
Dear Janice,
With regard to your message of July 18; “I’ll be back to you once Mike and
Phil have had a chance to discuss it.” …
There is nothing to discuss. There is no contract or formal arrangement with
CRU for Battelle Part 2. The money is mine to do with as I decide, and I have
decided to spend it here. If I had given part of this to CRU, it would have
been just that — a gift.
For US DOE, CRU has both a personal and contractual commitment to give some
money to me. Not only that, CRU has failed to fulfill this obligation for the
previous two years of the US DOE contract — something I find quite annoying.
By not demanding this money, I am essentially *giving* a considerable sum to
CRU. I’m sorry to have to point this out to you, but obviously I do.
When I said in my last email that there were no winners or losers with this
arrangement, I was wrong. CRU is the winner and I am the loser.
Regarding the issue of whether the work will be done, this is of no concern to
CRU for the Battelle work. For US DOE, it is an issue that Phil, as the
in-house PI, should be concerned about. As far as I can see, however, there
is no problem here. As always, CRU has done far more per $ that any other US
DOE grant recipient.
Cheers,
Tom”
Ps. — is a key.
What shall i find, is this text some kind of fairy tale?

I’m not sure but I think what Ilkka Mononen is saying, is that there are emails that are not included in the all.7z encrypted file that are unreadable. He has been able to process them into readable text. He is not referring to cracking the all.7z file but has cracked those emails that appear in as unreadable in the 5000 released readable batch. There are emails included in the release that are not readable. This might be important or at least may enable us to read those emails we are presently skipping over.
Ilkka Mononen – you should find someone who is fluent in English or describe your findings in your own language and perhaps someone here can translate. Start at the beginning and slowly describe what you are doing. GK

> Bingo!
> 3) I now show the two lines next to each other:
> > –=====================_867848803==_
> > –=====================_??? ==_
Sorry – no bingo.
You are looking at the MIME encoding of Email messages. These have absolutely nothing to do with the encryption on a .zip file.
MIME is merly a way to break multiple pieces of content into a single Email. Most mail readers hide the details from users, but anything working with raw Email messages will see it. The Climategate 2 emails have partially removed the MIME at the beginning and what’s left is stuff that will confuse people not familiar with Email protocols and formats.
Here’s an example of Email composed on my Linux system by a mail reader called “exmh”.
There’s a piece I typed, another piece I included from a file (ilkka.txt), and a third piece from the same file, but encode with “Base64″ encoding. That is useful for including binary files, and things like .doc and other word processor files are binary.
MIME requires some unique chunk of text as a separator, those generally start (maybe must) with dashes and equal signs. In this case, it’s ” ==_Exmh_1323020915_150330″. The content can be almost anything, and you can often tell what mail system the user has, exmh for me. The numbers are probably the current Unix time (seconds since 1970 Jan 1), including microseconds to further help creating a unique string.
I’m sorry to say you are fixated on MIME strings as potential passwords or other magic numbers. They are not, and you’re just wasting your time in this pursuit.
-Ric
From: ewerme@…
To: ric@…
cc:
Subject: MIME demo
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed ;
boundary=”==_Exmh_1323020915_150330″
——–
This is a multipart MIME message.
–==_Exmh_1323020915_150330
Content-Type: text/plain
This is text part 1.
–==_Exmh_1323020915_150330
Content-Type: text/plain ; name=”ilkka.txt”
Content-Description: ilkka.txt
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”ilkka.txt”
This is from a separate text I’ve attached.
I’ll see if I can do it again with BASE64 encoding.
–==_Exmh_1323020915_150330
Content-Type: text/plain ; name=”ilkka.txt”
Content-Description: ilkka.txt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”ilkka.txt”
VGhpcyBpcyBmcm9tIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgdGV4dCBJJ3ZlIGF0dGFjaGVkLgoKSSdsbCBzZWUg
aWYgSSBjYW4gZG8gaXQgYWdhaW4gd2l0aCBCQVNFNjQgZW5jb2RpbmcuCg==
–==_Exmh_1323020915_150330–
What I see on my screen when I read the Email is:
Subject: MIME demo
From: ewerme@
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:50:22 -0500
To: ric@wermenh.com
(multipart/mixed)
1. (text/plain)
This is text part 1.
2. ilkka.txt (text/plain)
. . . (Invoke menu with right button.)
3. ilkka.txt (text/plain)
. . . (Invoke menu with right button.)

Ric Werme says December 4, 2011 at 10:01 am
…
MIME requires some unique chunk of text as a separator, those generally start (maybe must) with dashes and equal signs.

For Ilkka, see:http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v6r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.etools.mft.doc%2Fac30080_.htm
Topic: Example definition of MIME boundary parameter, first, the _boundary_ definition statement:Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=MIME_boundary [assigned parm in bold]
…
MIME Delimiters: The boundary delimiter consists of a line starting with a hyphen pair, followed by a boundary string [as defined just above in this example -_Jim]. This sequence must not occur within the MIME message at any point other than as a boundary. A MIME end-delimiter is a hyphen pair, followed by the MIME boundary string, followed by a further hyphen pair. All delimiter lines must end in the ASCII sequence . An example of a delimited message is:
—MIME_boundary [Note: This is the text as defined above preceded by hyphens]message data
—MIME_boundarymessage data
—MIME_boundary—
… where MIME_boundary is the boundary delimiter string, and message data represents message data.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
It would appear that there may be some ‘defaults’ for the ‘boundary’ parameter text, such as “=” or maybe “+” as well, usually occurring in a repeated fashion e.g. “–===========” .
See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Multipart_messages
.

Ilkka Mononen says on December 4, 2011 at 7:59 am
Is this old or unseen?
??? is puzzling me, if it means something else, i look it at &H, it is ???, is it canged
via ascii conversations?
…

It looks like you are witnessing the application of (the product of) an e-mail and phone number ‘obscuring’ (obliteration or mangling) script applied before the file was placed on the (public) website.
The original files contain the actual data (ph #’s and e-mail addys).
I recommend you download the original FOIA2011.zip (ClimateGate II .zip) file and use that as the ‘Gold’ standard for interpretation and as the ultimate authority as to actual content. Websites are necessarily (literally: “out of necessity”) changing a slight bit of the content (as explained above) and I think the (obscuring) algorithms might be affecting some actual content (number sequences especially) as well.
The actual file can be found via link(s) here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ (just before comments section).
.

I found more, in Filand , this is vey intresting, newer seen.
We are now working on new emissions scenarios
-“emissions. He will forward you a copy of his most recent
-draft that we will be using to determine alternative sulfur emissions to go
-with new scenarios.”
I found the Finnish connection after 2 weeks searching.
to: Tim Carter
Only ??? to numbers.http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1825.txt&search=.%40fmi.fi
0diggsdigg
Share
cc: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@uea.ac.uk
date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 17:03:12 +010 ???
from: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC
subject: Sulphate aerosol emissions
to: Tim Carter
Dear Tim,
We are now working on new emissions scenarios, as Mike told you. They are
not complete yet, the first pre-view should be available by April and final
versions in early 1999. Arnulf is working of the literature assessment of
sulfate aerosol emissions. He will forward you a copy of his most recent
draft that we will be using to determine alternative sulfur emissions to go
with new scenarios. As you will see, our current view is that older
scenarios over-estimated sulfur emissions. They are going to be lower
because of the need to protect against acidification, because of
technological change in the energy system and because of the shift away
from coal-intensive energy systems.
Best regards, Naki

“BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.
Embedded Content: header.htm: 00000001,3bbc6812,00000000,00000000
“

To Rick.
I see that questio is not about MIME.
This strange key ————– to Foija Grepper founds all the same ————– emails
from subdirectories, its´ mainly a figure.
I think that MIME device do that, and files that i found are MIME devices bacup files.
??? ,, maybe MIME device destroys senders ID from original message when sending
for safety reasons?
But Jim says that in ZIP files they are messages “FAX” number, maybe because
they are not sended at all.
Te me it seems to be quite simply, nobody has destroyed anything, FOIA files are
only been taken out orginal file structure tree, and they are difficult to find.
I took back that “slimeball”, they just intruded to my pc,s so heawily, yesterday i must
change 5 times my password, and reload operating system, so i´am evil.
I´m sorry!
Ilkka.

Ilkka Mononen says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:32 am
> MIME has nohthing to do with that.
> Seems that you are holding a phoney climate blog.
> Maybe slimebollers called you an alaarm phone.
> Mime tool is on right upper corner on screen.
My systems don’t have a MIME tool, and I have no idea what yours might do.
Slimebollers didn’t call me. My involvement with Email goes back to ARPAnet days, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc414 and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc542.txt . I don’t have development experience with MIME, but I understand it well enough.
One of your previous posts referred to file 2803.txt. While I missed the .zip file from the first site it was stored on, I copied from the second. The file starts with:

date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 13:39:41 +0100 (BST)
from: J Mitchell [I’ll redact Email addresses – Ric]
subject: Re: your advice sought
to: m.hulme@….uk (Mike Hulme)
Hi Mike,
1. Can you send me the message in plain text – I couldn’t read it
2. Gabi Hegerl is here. We are interested in the state of the NAO in
HadCM2 which Tim has been looking at.
Can you FAX pictures of the NAO index (model and observed) so we can
make some subjective judgement on
(a) the frequency
(b) the amplitude
(c0 the pattern
of the model relative to obsevations
thanks
John
>
> –=====================_867848803==_
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
>
> Dear John,
>
> Please read the attached letter and statement which you will find
> self-explanatory. We would be grateful for your thoughts on the idea, its

So, this starts out with John Mitchell replying to Mike Hulme to say he couldn’t read an attachment and would rather have it in “plain text” – good ol’ ASCII.
The mail header is reduced from the actual mail header, and I’m certain that the MIME instructions are among those discarded. Also, the first part of the Email has lost its MIME header.
The second part still has its MIME header. The “867848803” looks like a Unix time stamp. Let’s see:

I expected July 7th, perhaps this is Email forwarded twice. That would explain why the mail looks as though the Email got a “> ” prefix as part of the reply process. My mailer would does that too.
The Email continues:
> execution and the content of the statement.
>
> Mike
>
> –=====================_867848803==_
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”alcamo.doc”
> Content-type: application/msword; name=”alcamo.doc”; x-mac-type=”42494E41″; x-mac-creator=”4D535744″
> Content-transfer-encoding: base64
>
> 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAMwAAAAAAAAAA
> EAAANQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAADIAAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////s
> pcEARwAJCAAAABK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAALCAAAA4AYmpiao7ZjtkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> AAAJBBYAVy4AAOyzAQDsswEAEBwAAAAAAAAbAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAA
The “.doc” file suggests Microsoft Word, and that’s confirmed with “application/msword”. The “x-mac-type” keyword suggests it was sent by a Mac user.
I haven’t looked at BASE64 encoding in ages, basically it selects 64 printable characters and uses each to convey 6 bits of data in each character. There’s no compression of source or output, and the bunch of “////…” is typical of MS Word files (likely a bunch of zero bytes, I haven’t bothered to check.
There are a few Emails with BASE64 attachements. I haven’t bothered to decode them, I assume others have.
At the bottem of the Email:
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> AA==
> –=====================_867848803==_
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
>
>
> —————————————————————————–
> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 …
> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 …
This is just the end of the .doc file (maybe As are all zeros and slashes are all ones) and then a new MIME part that is just Hulme’s signature file.
At any rate, it is all about MIME, and not at all about ZIP7 passwords.
Please abandon this pursuit and get back to on topic items.
-Ric

“Please abandon this pursuit and get back to on topic items”
Do you really think that there is some password to ZIP files.
Data is available at TXT. mode, we must only find it,, and look
what it says.
Sooner or later i will found something intresting, and now i´m not alone, thanks Jim an others,
tahats was my point to come here fom our “suburb. “.[MODERATOR’S NOTE: Please, no more videos. -REP]

I wrote:
> At any rate, it is all about MIME, and not at all about ZIP7 passwords.
Looking back at the Emails, _Jim noted:
3) I now show the two lines next to each other:
> -=====================_867848803==_
> -=====================_??? ==_
> Note the change from: “867848803” (9 characters) to: “??? ” (4 characters including the trailing space). What accounts for this change?
and later:
> Update: The 9 numeric characters were probably altered as part of an automated phone number masking script being applied to the file before upload to the web site.
So yes, that part of the MIME data appears to be related the general Email/phone number hiding changes done by that site. As Jim mentioned, you should download the full .zip file and access the files from that to avoid getting tripped up by changes to the files in the Web archives.

> Update: The 9 numeric characters were probably altered as part of an automated phone number masking script being applied to the file before upload to the web site.
And another thing – it looks like the unmodifed text is stored at the echowho site, but the hiding is done as part of the display process, hence Ilkka’s search for http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=867848803 matched the lines that were displayed with “??? “.
I recall reading a note from the developer saying he did that for Email addresses, looks like he is trying to do it for things that look like phone numbers too.
Just another reason to work with the original files.

There is also empty spaces on mails, Has the mime engine cleared orginal message when sended.
And sometimes sender with device settings left orginal MIME message us decode to txt.
I think that it is nothing unusual in MIME messages.
Same climate politics as on txt. messages.
Anyway they uses FAX numbers,, and when i get them, then i,ll find the corresponding
emails.
If there is nothing, so what?

Of course you are right.
Now i can hear it.
> > -=====================_??? ==_
Is FAX,s dialing sound, and 867848803 have replaced to ???, in some phase
of unZipping , or ASCII format jams, nobody has destroyed any numbers.

I see that questio is not about MIME.
This strange key ————– to Foija Grepper founds all the same ————– emails
from subdirectories, it’s mainly a figure.
I think that MIME device do that, and files that i found are MIME devices bacup files.
??? ,, maybe MIME device destroys senders ID from original message when sending
for safety reasons?

The original mail files do have some changes from what was received,
notably the MIME lines in the message header. There may be later
processing too that removes or modifies the MIME header. I haven’t looked
closely at what is sent by the mail client.

But Jim says that in ZIP files they are messages “FAX” number, maybe because they are not sended at all.

The FAX/phone number is matching more than that, e.g. the time stamp for
sunrise and time checking.

Te me it seems to be quite simply, nobody has destroyed
anything, FOIA files are only been taken out orginal file structure tree,
and they are difficult to find.

Instead of a tree of individual files, most mail systems put the Email
into a data base and work on it there.

I took back that “slimeball”, they just intruded to my pc,s so
heawily, yesterday i must change 5 times my password, and reload operating
system, so i´am evil. I´m sorry!

Well I could have suggested that you used a Linux system to look at the
files. (You are from Finland, right?) However, while I haven’t looked
at all the files in the Email release, I don’t believe any of them have
an attachment that will infect a computer that reads them.
What ever trouble you are having with your system, I don’t think the
files in the MIME section are causing problems.
-Ric

No, i do not use Linux.
Attacs to my, and many other computers have lasted abut a year.
They started aboyt year ago from Aller mediahouses Suomi24 Ilmastonmuutos blog.
blog http://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/debate/5433
Some activist group who want silence us “sceptics” by halting our pc.s.
New Win 7 machine with latest virus safety dont matter them,
one my friend must change to Apple.
I am also Sähköteurastaja & Myteurastaja, with name on facedook.
MIME jam, we can solve it, i can see it, its not problem, but we can
get a clear explanation,.
Attacs from IP 169.***… to 172 .** if i remember, lost my archieves yesterday.

And case “AAAAAAAAAAAAAA” to mime decryption we got also FAX and
phone numbers, where the “message was sended” , …. `?
“IME \@ “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997
NOTE ASCII unicode synbols!
Ilkka.
Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. The statement has specific goals in specific countries:
In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its position.
In European countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse emissions: Here, the Statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.
On behalf of my colleagues, may I request the following from you at this stage:
Your suggestions for changes in text.
Your recommendations for scientists to contact for commenting on the draft.
Having agreed on a form of words by consulting with a small number of colleagues (a process I am co-ordinating for the UK), we shall proceed to invite about 10 key scientists in the field in Europe (e.g. Crutzen, Houghton, Bolin, etc.) to sponsor the statement. Having gained this prestige endorsement, we shall then endeavour to invite as many additional scientists as possible (100s if not 1000s) to indicate their support for the statement which shall then be presented to the media at a press conference ‘ … with the support of “n” European scientists.’
Please reply as soon as possible at the below address. We look forward to your comments.
With best wishes,
Mike Hulme
email: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
fax: 01603 507784
phone: 01603 593162
and
Joseph Alcamo
Rob Swart
Statement of European Scientists
on Actions to Protect Global Climate
In 1992 the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year, at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take an even more important step. It is our opinion that in Kyoto the nations of the world should agree upon immediate and substantive action to ensure the long term protection of global climate by controlling the current increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Our opinion is bolstered by the assessment of scientific knowledge carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recently published a voluminous report on its findings. The report noted:
Global mean surface air temperature has increased by around 0.3 to 0.60C since the late 19th century.
Recent years have been the warmest since 1860.
Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm over the past 100 years and much of the rise may be related to the increase in global mean temperature.
The IPCC also maintained that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, and that climate is expected to continue to change in the future. These changes will bring with them further increases in sea level, the transformation of forest- and other ecosystems, modifications of crop yield, shifts in the geographic range of carriers of disease of plants, animals and humans, and many other impacts. Some of these impacts may be seen as positive, such as the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in certain dry regions; and some of these impacts may be adapted to, as in the case of building dikes to protect against slowly rising sea level (where they can be afforded). But many, if not most, impacts of climate change will increase risks to society and nature. Furthermore, many of these impacts will be irreversible. As the IPCC has reported, vulnerability to climate change is of particular importance to people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or on small islands. Risks to nature will be significant in the many areas where natural ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
Because of these risks, we find it important for nations to develop long-term climate protection goals, as in setting limits on the increase of global temperature and sea level. Equally important, we recommend that European and industrialized nations use long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example, by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
Some may say that action to control emissions should be delayed because of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. We reply that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change”, as clearly stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We also recognize that there are economic arguments for delaying the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find the arguments against delay to be more compelling. First, delaying action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions to future generations. Second, delaying action will lead to a greater accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore make it more difficult to prevent future climate change when action is finally taken.
Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other industrialized countries to accede to controls of greenhouse emissions as part of a Kyoto agreement. We further believe that some of these emission controls can be achieved at little or no net cost through improvements in the efficiency of energy systems and faster introduction of renewable energy.
As to a quantitative goal for controlling emissions, we believe that the European Union proposal is consistent with long term climate protection. This proposal would reduce by 15% the total collective greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the -15% target as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
*Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
Version: 4
Date: TIME \@ “d MMMM, yyyy” 2 July, 1997
PAGE 3
PAGE 3

This is likely just a MS Word document. Those are binary files and have numeric control information. I’m not going to look into what these are, if you Google something like |”microsoft word” page control value| you might find them (don’t include the vertical bars).
As for the AAAAAA… – okay, where is BASE64 described? See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64 – Note that “A” represents 6 zero bits and “/” represents 6 one bits, note my mention of them in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/steve-mcintyre-on-the-bolt-report/#comment-818631
All you’re searching for are for BASE64 encoded files that have blocks of zero bytes. Lots of uncompressed binary files do that.http://www.opinionatedgeek.com/dotnet/tools/base64decode/ – Handy little decoder. If you use it, you have to remember that 4 BASE64 characters represent 3 unencoded characters, so if you pick up some BASE64 text at the wrong offset, you’ll get junk from the decoder.
E.g. “… Mike Hulme ……” encodes as “Li4uIE1pa2UgSHVsbWUgLi4uLi4u”. Note that “…” encodes as “Li4u”. If you start decoding with i4uI…, 4uIE…, or uIE1…, you will get junk.
Conversely, if you want to search for “Mike Hulme” in BASE64 text, you have to search for three different substrings.
The short answer is – you’re looking a MS Word documents without MS Word. You should use MS Word to looking at the “metadata” – the information in the file about who wrote it and when. There’s very little interesting looking at BASE64 encodings of MS Word files other than finding them to decode and give to MS Word.

Somebody wants to give me massive dataset, part of Word docs, cannot open all, yet.
Language unknown?
“*Sea Level Rise Potential from Glacier and Ice Cap area and volume distributions* Sarah C.B. Raper^1 , Roger J. Braithwaite^2 . ^1 Alfred Wegener Institute Foundation for Polar and Marine Research, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany. ^2 Geography Department, Universityof Manchester, ManchesterM13 9PL, England. INDEX TERMS 1827 Glaciology 1863 Snow and Ice 3210 Modeling 3309 Climatology 4556 Sea Level Variations KEY WORDS Glaciers, Ice Caps, Climate, Sea Level, Global Warming 1828 *Abstract* * * Projections of sea-level rise from glaciers and ice caps for the next century and beyond should be based on an assessment of the ice available for melting. Projections to date are based on all regions except Greenlandand Antarctica, yet no sound estimates for this volume of ice and its potential for sea level rise are evident in the literature. An ice cap data set is compiled allowing the separate treatment of glacier area coverage data. Glacier inventory data are comprehensive enough in some regions to allow the estimation of glacier size distributions. The differences in the distributions are related to a metric of the regional topography, allowing glacier size distributions to be estimated on a 1^o latitude longitude grid of glacier containing cells. Appropriate volume-area scaling for glaciers and for ice caps gives global estimates of glacier and ice cap volumes by size class. This leads to an estimate of the total ice volume of 0.088 ±0.007 10^6 km^3 and a sea-level rise equivalent of 0.243 ±0.014 m. The glaciers and ice caps contribute 41% and 59% to these estimates respectively. These values relate to a nominal reference period of 1961-1990. *1. Introduction* * * The sea level rise chapter (Church and Gregory, 2001) in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) presents future glacier and ice cap (GSIC) melt based on the work of Gregory and Oerlemans (1998) and Van der Wal and Wild (2001). The basis for projections of melt over the next century and beyond should be an assessment of the volume of ice available for melt. Meier and Bahr (1996) estimate a total glacier and ice cap area of 0.68 10^6 km^2 , a volume of 0.18 +/- 0.04 10^6 km^3 , and sea level equivalent of 0.50 +/- 0.10 m. However, the projections in the IPCC and elsewhere exclude the glaciers and ice caps on the margins of Greenlandand the Antarctic Peninsula. Dyurgerov and Meier (1997) give an area for the GSICs outside Greenlandand Antarcticaof 0.54 10^6 km^2 , but no associated volume and SLR potential are evident in the above cited literature. The purpose of this paper is to estimate this GSIC volume and the SLR potential, thus giving a firmer foundation for GSIC melt projections. *2. Data and methods* * * Ice coverage is taken from the 1^o latitude longitude gridded data set of Cogley (1998). Outside Antarcticaand Greenlandthere are 1551 grid cells which contain ice cover. To calculate ice volume from area it is necessary separate the glacier ice from the ice cap ice and to estimate the size distribution of each. We have compiled an ice cap data set listing latitude, longitude and area. The data set is based mainly on the atlas of Kotlyakov et al. (1997). Individual ice cap areas were identified in the atlas and added to the ice cap data set. This area was then subtracted from the Cogely data set. Ice cap location and area for Severnayay Zemlya and a few other places were taken from data obtained from the National Snow and IceDataCenter(1999); this data set is otherwise known as the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) data set (Haeberli et al.1999). The resulting glacier and ice cap areas are 0.401 10^6 km^2 and 0.121 10^6 km^2 respectively. The glacier size distribution cannot be obtained directly from the WGMS data set because the data coverage is inadequate in many regions (Bahr and Meier, 1996; Van der Wal and Wild, 2001). Normalized glacier size distributions for seven selected regions with good coverage are presented in Figure 1. Linear fits to the data have positive slope in two cases, negative slope in four cases and one slope close to zero. We associate these slope differences with regional topographic differences. Using the National Geodetic Survey thirty second (30’) topography data set, TOPO30, we calculate a standard deviation (SD) for each point and its adjacent grid cells (the number of adjacent grid cells used in the SD calculation is discussed below). This gives a 120×120 data set of SDs for each 1^o grid square in which glaciers occur. It is clear from sample comparisons of glacier location in a 1^o grid square and the 30’ elevations that the glacier locations are well represented by the highest elevations. The relevant average SD in each grid square is therefore identified as an average over the glacier area, which is assumed to be at the highest elevations. We made a study of the effect of the change with latitude of the resolution in the longitudinal direction in the TOPO30 data on the SDs and any systematic bias that this might have on our results. Initially, the SDs were calculated for each elevation point using its 8 adjacent grid cells (9 elevation points contributing to each SD). We identified two opposing effects on the SDs of decreasing resolution towards the equator. The first effect is a smoothing of the topography tending to decrease the SDs. The second, sometimes opposing effect, results from the greater distance between the mid points of adjacent cells in the longitudinal direction. We found the strength of this second effect to be dependant on the ‘roughness’ of the topography making it hard to apply a correction. Instead we sought to minimize the effect by repeating the SD calculation using each elevation point with the two adjacent points aligned at that longitude. The resulting global mean area and volume distributions based on the 9 and 3 point SDs are practically identical. An explanation for this is the systematic declination of the Equilibrium Line Altitude (ELA) with increasing latitude. Lower latitude glaciers must necessarily be on the top of high mountains (higher SDs) whereas higher latitude glaciers can be situated at ever lower elevations (lower SDs). Thus any remaining latitudinal bias in the 3 point SDs which we adopt in this paper is very unlikely to give a systematic bias to our results. In Figure 2, regional average topographic SDs are plotted against the glacier size distribution regression slopes (denoted b) from Figure 1. We conclude from linear regression that the SDs are a good predictor for the area regression slopes, accounting for 90% of the variance. High SDs indicate steep topography and a relative large area associated with small glaciers whereas low SDs indicate low topography and a relatively large area associated with large glaciers. For each glacier square in the gridded data set we use the topographic SD to estimate the glacier size distribution slope (b) where b = f(SD) = a+ bSD (1) andaand bare the intercept and slope given in Figure 2. Fractional total areas in each area size bin are calculated by insuring that the total area across all bins is equal to unity. The glacier areas, A, in each bin are assumed to be (2^n – 2^n-1 )/2 km^2 , where n are successive bin numbers running from n=2 to 12. A in the first bin is assumed to be 0.5 km^2 . When following this procedure the number of glaciers in each size bin is not integer. This is a tolerable result of the statistical nature of the procedure. However for realism a lower limit for the allowable fraction of a glacier in the largest area bin for each grid cell is required. For a central estimate we take this fractional value to be f=1/3. We image then that 3 adjacent 1^o grid cells could share this glacier. By an iterative procedure, starting if necessary with bin number 12, the glacier area in successively smaller bins is set to zero if the fractional area is below f. On each iteration, before testing for f, we insure that the total area across all bins is equal to unity. This procedure limits the size of the largest glacier in a grid cell, and this size is related to the total area in the grid cell. To explore
the uncertainties associated with the choice of fwe repeat the calculation with f= 1/4 and f= 1/2. Another set of uncertainties are those related to the regression parameters aand b. We explore four options: i all the slopes b are more positive, by using a= 0.0312 + 0.0068 ii all the slopes b are more negative, by using a= 0.0312 – 0.0068 iii the dependence of b on the SD is greater, by using b= -0.000344 + 5.3e-05 iv the dependence of b on the SD is smaller, by using b= -0.000344 – 5.3e-05. These alternative relationships are shown in Figure 2. Having estimated the number of glaciers in each size bin, the glacier ice volume is estimated using scaling methods following Chen and Ohmura (1990), and Bahr et /al./ (1997). We use V = c A ^g (2) ^ whereV is the glacier volume associated with the each glacier size bin area A , c=0.0285 m^3-2 ^g and g= 1.36 as given by Bahr et al. (1997). For ice caps we assume a parabolic form from Paterson(1994) where L = (A 10^6 / ?)^0.5 H = 3.4 (A 10^6 / ?)^0.25 V = 2.0 ? H L^2 / (3.0 10^9 ) (3), hereL, A, H and V are the radius, area, maximum thickness and volume of an ice cap with circular plan. This is equivalent to V µA ^1.25 . However, this is likely to be a maximum estimate of V since most ice caps are not perfectly circular. In particular, the largest ice cap, nearly 20 10^3 km^2 on Novaya Zemlyais long and narrow. To make a lower bound estimate of the ice cap volumes we assume V µ2 ((A/2)^1.25 ). *3. Discussion of distributions and uncertainties* * * The resulting area and volume distributions for glaciers and ice caps are presented in Figure 3. The five estimates of the glacier area size distribution, by definition, all add to the same total area of 0.401 10^6 km^2 . The largest uncertainty is related to the uncertainty in the mean value of the slopes b, options i and ii. The total number of glaciers considered ranges from 137,948 for option i to 195,773 for option ii. These glacier numbers are critically dependant on the assumption that the smallest glacier size is 0.5 km. The differences in glacier area distribution have a significant effect on the resulting total glacier volume because of the power law relationship between area and volume. Allowing a smaller/larger fractional glacier area in the largest bin in each grid cell (f=0.25 versus f=0.5) results in proportionally less/more small glaciers and more/less large glaciers. Thus the total volume is greater when f=0.25. The largest total volume is when all slopes b are more positive (i) and there is relatively more area in larger glaciers. More/less dependence of b on the grid cell SD (options iii and iv) have a lesser effect on total volume. The total ice cap area is 0.121 10^6 km^2 . The volume versus area relationships for glaciers and icecaps (equations 2 and 3) are such that ice cap volume is less than glacier volume for the same area. However, because the ice cap distribution peaks at greater bin number (14) compared to the glacier distribution (9), ice caps contribute more to the total volume than the glaciers. *5. Conclusions* * * The analysis is based on glacier and ice cap areas of 0.401 10^6 km^2 and 0.121 10^6 km^2 respectively which excludes those of Greenlandand Antarctica. Combining the considered uncertainties in quadrature we compute glacier and ice cap volumes of 0.036 ± 0.006 10^6 km^3 and 0.052 ±0.004 10^6 km^3 respectively. Assuming an oceanic area of 3.62 10^8 km^2 , these volumes translate into a total sea-level rise equivalent of 0.243 ±0.014 m; 0.010 ±0.016 m being from the glaciers and 0.142 ± .0123 m from the ice caps. The latter values estimate the potential future sea level rise from glaciers and ice caps (excluding Greenland and Antarctica) if all the ice in them were to melt. We relate these estimates to a nominal reference period of 1961-1990. Acknowledgments The authors thank Tim Osborn and Christopher Zweck for helpful discussions. References Bahr, D.B., M.F. Meier, and S.D. Peckham (1997) The physical basis of glacier volume-area scaling. /Journal of Geophysical Research, 102/, 20,355–20,362. Chen, J., and A. Ohmura (1990) Estimation of alpine glacier water resources and their change since the 1879s. /IAHS Publication 193/, 127–135. Church, J.A., and J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D. Qin, P.L. Woodworth(2001) Changes in sea level. (In) /Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, /(eds. J.T. Houghton et al.), CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 639–693. Cogley, J. G. 1998.GGHYDRO Release 2.2. ftp://ftp.trentu.ca/pub/gghyro. Accessed June 1998. Gregory, J.M., and J. Oerlemans (1998) Simulated future sea level rise due to glacier melt based on regionally and seasonally resolved temperature changes. /Nature, 391/, 474–476. Haeberli, W., H. Bösch, K. Scherler, G. Østrem and C. C. Wallén, (1989) /World glacier inventory: status 1988/. IAHS(ICSI) – UNEP – UNESCO, Paris. Kotlyakov, V.M. /et al/., (1997) /World atlas of snow and ice resources/.RussianAcademyof Sciences, Instituteof Geography, 392pp. Meier, M.F., and D.B. Bahr (1997) Counting glaciers.Use of scaling methods to estimate the number and size distribution of the glaciers of the world. (In) /Glaciers, Ice Sheets and Volcanoes: A Tribute to Mark F. Meier/, (ed. S.C. Colbeck), Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Special Report 96-27, Hanover, NH, pp. 89–94. National Snow and IceDataCenter, (1999) /World Glacier Inventory/.World Glacier Monitoring Service and National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology. Boulder, CO. Digital media. Paterson, W. S. B. (1994) /The//physics of glaciers/. Oxford, Pergamon, 480 pp.** Van der Wal, R.S.W., and M. Wild (2001) Modeling the response of glaciers to climate change by applying volume-area scaling in combination with a high-resolution GCM. /Climate Dynamics, 18/, 359–366. _ _ Figure Captions_ *_ * Fig. 1: Fraction of regional glacier area plotted against glacier size bin numbers. The first size bin contains the factional area accounted for by glaciers of area < 1 km^2 . Bin boundaries are given by 2^n , where n = 0 for the upper boundary of the first bin. Fig. 2: Area regression slopes from Figure 1 plotted against regional average topographic standard deviation (m). Also shown are a linear fit to the data points (solid) with correlation coefficient r; regression lines assuming the fitted intercept a± one standard deviation (dotted lines) and regression lines assuming the fitted slope b± one standard deviation (dot-dashed lines). Fig. 3: Histograms of glacier and ice cap (a) area and (b) volume plotted against area size bins. The size in each bin is the average area of the bin boundaries given in Figure 1 caption. For clarity the glacier results are plotted with lines and symbols. Results are for various values of f, uncertainty options i-iv and high and low estimates of ice cap volume as described in the text. Figure 1 [top] Figure 2 [top] Figure 3 [top] *_ * *_ * * *

Wow, people posting here actually worship dah Bolta?? Yes his blog site gets a lot of hits. But its widely known as almost as good as Piers Ackermans as a place to watch the nut-baggers froth and spray on whatever the current topic is, at the same time as they express their undying love and respect for the blogger.
on ratings:
The series debuted with 163,000 while the encore received 123,000 viewers. The debut was narrowly beaten by Insiders, which received 172,000 viewers. Bolt stated on his blog he would like to beat Insiders. He reached this goal in his second episode, reaching 174,000 viewers, beating Insiders with 166,000.Ratings for the show declined to 136,000 viewers for the third episode and 131,000 for the encore. This compared to 207,000 for Insiders. Insiders has defeated The Bolt Report in every subsequent week. The Bolt Report remains at the bottom of the free-to-air ratings for its timeslot.
Insiders has been much more factually informative since they dumped Bolt. More analysis and less nasty crap.

Just as Rick says.
Date: TIME \@ “yyyy”d MMMM, 2 July, 1997
Is the time stamp Format, time tics from DOS birthday, maybe same way at UNIX,
Timestamp tells us the system, and that we can see is WIN stamp,
TIME \@ “yyyy”d MMMM, another (UNIX), our system do not recogsize it..
Seems that MIME Device uses time stamp to generate ID to backupfile, nnnnnn.txt
it is sec.s as Ric show us. Time from DOS 1,o birth as units, called “time tics”.
Its universal time, same at all WIN computers.
It is tied to GMT & UTC …….
i´m loosing my mind, i´ts too obvious.

I found confidental IPCC messages.
“This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
information and is solely intended for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized
disclosure or actions taken in reliance on it are forbidden. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and notify the sender.
The employer of the sender does not guarantee that the information sent
and/or received is correct and does not accept any liability for damages
related thereto.”http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1770.txt&search=c4EBBE45BDFC9551D
Can´t open coded message yet, are they MIME format, looks like they are, i tried
also with diffrent charsets on Base64 decoder?
Is Jim or anyboby else intrested?
Ilkka.

Some progress ???
It is now Word document.
“University of East Anglia
Climatic Research Unit Dear Colleagues Thursday, 23 July 1998
now and that will be used in the future to explore (anthropogenic) climate change detection and future climate scenarios.
At a subsequent, brief meeting attended by myself, Paul Valdes and Nick Shackleton in Cambridge, we decided that the novel component of a new proposal could best be represented by building it around the Hadley Centre Aims and the Unified Model. Paul and I then met at Bracknell with John Mitchell, Simon Tett and Peter Cox to discuss the Hadley Centre interest and to decide whether true mutual benefit was achievable under this scenario. I am pleased to report that the suggestion was enthusiastically endorsed by them and we have moved on to plan an initial proposal drafting along these lines.
The purpose of this note is to inform you and, through you, the wider palaeoclimate community of this effort and to assure you that your full participation in this effort is requested. For practical reasons only, a small drafting team was suggested at our original London meeting. This is made up of, along with myself, Paul Valdes (Reading), John Lowe (RHUL), Nick Shackleton (Cambridge), Alan O’Niell (Reading), Phil Gibbard (Cambridge), and Rick Battarbee (UCL). These are supplemented with Simon Tett and Peter Cox (Hadley Centre). When we have something on paper, the intention is to solicit comments from a wider ‘consultative team’ made up of David Warrilow (DETR), Geoff Bolton (Edinburgh), David Peel (BAS), Sandy Tudhope (Edinburgh) and Frank Oldfield (PAGES) and others.
At this point, it would not be productive to go into greater detail about the logic and discussions that occurred at the various meetings, other than to say that there was a concensus that there must be a clear focus on ‘state of the art’ modelling and the palaeowork envisaged must be justified within the context of this (and future) climate modelling.
Note that we are heading for a submission by the end of October! This information should hopefully get some sort of common discussion going. I will get back to everyone in due course.
Best wishes
Keith Briffa”
MIME SOF is DQONDQIU.
*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0NDQ0NDQ1UaHVyc2RheSwgMjMgSnVseSAxOTk4DQ1EZWFy
FOIA Grepper.http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2100.txt&search=Collslet.doc

Word documet.http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0986486371.txt&search=+————–
From: Mike Hulme
To: s.torok
Subject: Fwd: RE: kyoto survey – press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu Apr 5 11:59:31 2001
Simon,
Could you – or Vanessa – buy a THES today from the paper shop and check this out. I would
quite like to draft a short letter to THES as suggested by Steve. But I need to see how
the issue was presented in this week’s issue.
Thanks,
Mike
From: “Farrar, Steve”
To: ‘Mike Hulme’
Subject: RE: kyoto survey – press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:45:33 +010 ???
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Dear Mike,
thanks for that. I feel terrible but despite the pain it cost to reply to the survey,
the deadline has now passed. We had such a high response rate that we decided to run the
piece in this week’s paper while the issue of the US withdrawl from the protocol was
still high in everyone’s mind. So I cannot include your responses. However, you make a
number of very significant points, not least your reply to question 2 on the strength of
the evidence and the political framework outlined in your final sentences. I wonder –
and I know this is pushing it – whether you might consider rearranging some of these
sentences to form a brief letter to the editor for the following week’s paper? I would
like this issue to stay alive in the THES and allow the paper to play a small role in
persuading as many scientists as possible to take part in a scientific/political debate
that may contribute to influencing those people who *can* change things. Not an original
objective, I know, but the THES does have a fairly unique position within the academic
community and hence a responsibility. Anyhow, sorry for the bad news
best wishes
Steve
***********************
Steve Farrar
Science Reporter
Times Higher Education Supplement
66-68 East Smithfield
London E1W 1BX
United Kingdom
[1]www.thes.co.uk
Tel: (44) ???
Fax: (44) ???
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Hulme [[2]mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 04 April 2001 19:57
To: Farrar, Steve
Subject: Re: kyoto survey – press inquiry from the THES
Steve,
I hate these sort of questionnaires since Y or N answers are barely
adequate. However, I’ve given it a go with some other comments ………….
(by the way, Prof. Trevor Davies is Head of my School here at UEA – I am
only Director of a Centre within the School, albeit a highly relevant one!).
You can quote me if appropriate, but let me know before hand.
Mike
At 12:30 02/04/01 +010 ???, you wrote:
>Dear Mike,
>
>hope you’re well. I am conducting a survey of heads of UK university
>departments of environmental science for the Times Higher Education
>Supplement. I am keen to explore views concerning the United States and
>the Kyoto agreement. I wonder if you could answer the following Yes/No
>questions when you get a moment. Note, I will not identify you unless you
>specifically state that you do not mind being quoted.
>
>I do hope you can help
>
>all the bets
>
>Steve
>
>1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for
>driving global climate change?
YES
>2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start
>reducing emissions?
NO – to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are
altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks
associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised
through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for
deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions
reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work
from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing
emissions now – but I am not convinced a blind application of the
precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.
>3: Do you think the measures proposed at Kyoto were too weak, correct, or
>too strong?
The 5.2% emissions reduction by 2010 by Annex I countries were not driven
by science but by real-politik. By definition they were the best
achievable. The real issue however is not about target setting – it’s
about the dynamics of change worldwide in energy technologies, investment
strategies, consumer and community behaviour and aspirations, etc. It is
*these* things that in the end will deliver a safer climate – not the
Protocol per se. More attention should be directed at the diverse and
myriad set of actions needed to decarbonise our societies.
>4: Are you disappointed that George Bush has abandoned the Kyoto agreement?
YES – but it is too early to say that Kyoto is dead. The USA does not have
the power of veto – and Bush will have to propose some climate management
strategy of his own. We wait and see.
>5: Should the rest of the world press on with the agreement without the
>United States?
Probably YES. This can be achieved and should provide valuable lessons in
global climate management which we can learn from in the long-term.
>6: Do you feel the US should be allowed to count carbon sequestration
>measures such as planting new forests towards any carbon emissions
>reduction target?
YES. The UK are doing it in their national climate change programme so why
not the USA?
>7: Are you optimistic that there will be a new emissions control agreement
>within the next 12 months?
A ‘new’ one? We haven’t got one yet. I would think maybe not in the next
12 months, but the critical issues about global climate management will be
clearer.
>8: Should the Kyoto preliminary targets be watered down to gain the
>Americans’ support?
NO. If the USA don’t like them, let them not ratify or propose a strategy
of their own.
>If you would like to add any comments to this survey as to the
>implications of the US’s rejection of Kyoto for the planet, what UK can do
>about it or what role scientists can play in this debacle, please do so.
In a literal sense the implications for global climate are trivial – what
will affect the course of global climate (and only then climate beyond
about 2030 – up until then climate is pretty much pre-determined by inertia
in the system) in the long-run are the effects of cumulative decisions
taken by many, many people/governments/businesses over the next 10-20
years. Let’s not kid ourselves that the USA President is more powerful
than he would like to think. The planetary system is much bigger than one
4-year term of a US president.
The UK is playing a key role both within the negotiating machinery of the
FCCC, in pioneering new scientific analyses, and in working out new forms
of adapting to climate change. This momentum in the UK is not going to be
halted by Bush.
Scientists need to be there to point out the long-term nature of the
problem – it is not a classic political issue where a one-term government
can solve or worsen the problem. Scientists need to point out that for
long-term planetary management we need new analytical tools, new criteria
for investment decisions, a new appreciation of the concept of global
citizenship. What climate change forces us to do is to think about the
influence we are having on the quality of life for the next generation but
one – not our own generation or even our children’s
generation. Conventional politics is not a system geared up for this
challenge.
>***********************
>Steve Farrar
>Science Reporter
>Times Higher Education Supplement
>66-68 East Smithfield
>London E1W 1BX
>United Kingdom
>[3]www.thes.co.uk
>Tel: (44) ???
>Fax: (44) ???
>
>
>—————————————————————————-
>This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the
>intended recipient. It may contain confidential and/or privileged
>information. If you are not the intended recipient, any reliance on, use,
>disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or
>attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>error, please notify the sender by telephone +44 ???and delete
>the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
>
>If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this
>email are endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI
>Group), or wish to rely on them, please request written confirmation from
>Corporate Affairs. In the absence of such confirmation NI Group accepts no
>responsibility or liability.
>
>NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the
>Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of
>Communications) Regulations 2000.
>
>[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this
>e-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus
>checking software.]
>
>News International plc is the holding company for the News International
>group of companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address
>at 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY
*****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Executive Director
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK
tel: +44 ???(or 593900)
fax: +44 ???
mobile: ???
email: ???@uea.ac.uk
web site: [4]www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk
************************************************************************************
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
…. integrated research for sustainable responses ….
The Tyndall Centre is a new research initiative funded by three UK
Research Councils – NERC, ESRC, EPSRC – with support from the DTI.
************************************************************************************
—————————————————————————-
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the intended recipient.
It may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender by telephone +44 ???and delete the e-mail and
all attachments immediately.
If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this email are
endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI Group), or wish to rely
on them, please request written confirmation from Corporate Affairs. In the absence of
such confirmation NI Group accepts no responsibility or liability.
NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the Telecommunications
(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this e-mail or any
attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software.]
News International plc is the holding company for the News International group of
companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address at 1 Virginia St,
London E98 1XY
References
1. http://www.thes.co.uk/
2. mailto:???@uea.ac.uk
3. http://www.thes.co.uk/
4. http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/

“Decrypting” Mike Hulmes email to “Asher Minns”.
Asher Minns: Communications & Centre Manager A.Minns@uea.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1603 59 3906
subject: Re: reinventing bbc economics coverage
Investing messages 1078.txt
Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:48:31 am
1078.txt- Asher
1078.txt-
1078.txt: ——————————
1078.txt- Mr Asher Minns
1078.txt- Communication Manager
Opening 1078.txt results:
“Mike,
below are the details for Tuesday’s BBC briefing at White City in Shepherds Bush. Rebekah
Philips will meet you at the Stage Door (clearly signposted) at 1pm for a buffet lunch
before a 1:30 start. It finishes at 2:30.”
Harmles meeting at the Stage Door.
But opening —————————— with FOIA Grepper tells another story :http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+——————————
date: Thu Oct 16 17:53:52 2003
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: reinventing bbc economics coverage
to: “Asher Minns”
Fine for me right now. Alex might also be interested.
Mike
At 17:47 16/10/2003 +010 ???, you wrote:
From: “Asher Minns”
To: ,
,
“Mike Hulme” ,
,
“Bo Kjellen” ,
Subject: reinventing bbc economics coverage
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:47:02 +010 ???
Organization: University of East Anglia
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Dear Ian, Tim, Mike, Jonathan, Bo, Kerry,
Are you available on Monday 10th November to talk with Vicki Barker from the
BBC about how their news service could better represent global economics in
their reporting? (There is a little more information below)
I’ll nominate 1-2pm lunchtime as a suggestion, but the timing is totally
flexible if I find that lunchtime is no good for most.
Neil Adger is away for that date, but please do let me know if I ought to
include some other people.
Best wishes,
Asher
>From Vicki Barker:
If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating
what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic
trends… what would it look like?
In recent years, I have watched an environmental undertow beginning to tug
at economies around the world, even as the world’s peoples have been
awakening to the realities of an increasingly-globalized economy; and I have
wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying
these phenomena as effectively as they could be.
——————————
Mr Asher Minns
Communication Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
[1]www.tyndall.ac.uk
Mob: ???
Tel: +44 ???

FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
SUB Directory REDACTED.
CD/ redactedhttp://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED
DIR
—
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
0058.txt- Ralf
0058.txt-
0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
0058.txt-
0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
—
OPEN 0058.txt-http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED
“
date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
to: “Toumi, Ralf”
Ralf
[[[redacted: reference]]]
Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
with best wishes
Keith
At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
Best wishes,
Ralf
Professor Ralf Toumi
Department of Physics
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ
UK
Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
Fax: + 44 (0) ???
email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Open — it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
DIRhttp://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–
“### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
0876437553.txt-
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553.txt-“
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
Open 0876437553.txt
“From: Joseph Alcamo
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany”
There is still filename —————————————————-
DIRhttp://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Open
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
“From: Alan Robock
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn’t published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all’s well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
> Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
>”
This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
so we have to sort files like I did.
Ilkka.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy